Welcome to The Bolter and Chainsword
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Tactical Reserves

Eddie Orlock

Posted 21 April 2018 - 04:40 PM

Eddie Orlock

++ FRATERIS TEMPLAR ++

++ MODERATI ++

3,046 posts

Location:Calgary

Faction: Storm Angels

There should be some logical reason behind both the nerf and any exceptions.

Because, if it's so inconsequential, it was easier for the rule author to implement it this way. More complicated implementations take time, and time is money, and squandering money can get a public company sued if anyone can prove it. This, in the short run anyway, just induces GK players to buy more interceptors if they want to keep up.

There's logic, it's just not happy game design logic.

"Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low."
- Wallace Sayre

If You have a mawlock in terror from the deep reserves end of turn 3, does it die?

QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

Quixus

Posted 21 April 2018 - 07:00 PM

But this is a bad question, a better one would be "why would strike team be another exception?"

Rules like this are written to cover the whole game and all its faction, not just the one's you like.

And that is exactly the problem with rules written like this. Only certain units deployed in reserves are problematic, but the rule applies to (nearly) all units in reserves. Now you need a lot of exceptions just to make the rule work as intended. Just limiting the offenders would have been the much better solution.

BlackTriton

Posted 21 April 2018 - 07:55 PM

But this is a bad question, a better one would be "why would strike team be another exception?"

Rules like this are written to cover the whole game and all its faction, not just the one's you like.

And that is exactly the problem with rules written like this. Only certain units deployed in reserves are problematic, but the rule applies to (nearly) all units in reserves. Now you need a lot of exceptions just to make the rule work as intended. Just limiting the offenders would have been the much better solution.

as far as the developer are concerned it does work as intended with only one exception with is genestealer cult.

If you mean that the rule is badly worded, then I agree. it should clearly define that it only applies to unit set in reserve before the games begin.

Unit that begin on the board and then redeploy are not exeption to the rule, even though GW had to clarify that.

The burrow rule uses the terror from the deep rule.

Which sets the mawlock up in reserves. And then they arrive later.

Burrow isn't a seperate rule.

If You have a mawlock in terror from the deep reserves end of turn 3, does it die?

It dies if he was never set up at the end of turn 3.

it does not die if he was set up before, but then used the "burrow" ability.

"burrow" is a separate rule, it just refers to "terror from the deep" to avoid repetition, a lot of rules does that.

the above interpretation is a safe bet. If you need "proof" you should send a E-mail and ask they add this clarification to the Tyranid FAQ.

furthermore, insisting that someones mawlock is dead because he borrowed on turn 3 makes you "that guy". dont be "that guy"

Gentlemanloser

Posted 21 April 2018 - 08:42 PM

Please dont. This was the stance our tyranid player has taken with the current rules.

Burrow uses the rule Terror from the Deep.

If You use burrow you are no longer on board. You must be back in reserves. For two reasons. There's no where else you can be. And Terror places you there.

As a reinforcement, off the board, you die if not on the board at the end of turn 3.

This had nothing to do with whether you've already been set up or not.

QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

Plaguecaster

Posted 21 April 2018 - 09:20 PM

Plaguecaster

+FRATER DOMUS+

+ FRATER DOMUS +

2,938 posts

Location:New Zealand

Faction: Death Guard

Why not take that stance??, the Tyranid player sounds like he is completely right

I'd argue that it's fine and not actually destroyed since it's already arrived on the battlefield field before turn 3 because if you read the rule it states, "any unit that hasn't arrived on the battlefield by turn 3 is destroyed" it has already arrived on the battlefield so it doesn't matter, it can't be destroyed because of that rule you can burrow as much as you want with the only thing being if the game ends whilst it is still burrowing it is destroyed

Quixus

Posted 21 April 2018 - 09:22 PM

As a reinforcement, off the board, you die if not on the board at the end of turn 3.

The rules don't say that. what they do say is:

Any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the battle counts as having been destroyed.

Where the unit is at the end of turn 3 is irrelevant. The only fact of importance is that the unit has arrived at some point before that time. A unit that arrived in turn 2 does not count as destroyed no matter where it is at the end of turn 3.

Gentlemanloser

Posted 21 April 2018 - 11:24 PM

Burrow only says you can return as described by the terror from the deep rules.

Burrow shouldn't be effected.

Quixus likes this

QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

STTAB

Posted 22 April 2018 - 01:19 PM

Valkyries can transport 12 troops (or 4 ogryns)... turn 1 do a grab chute drop within 9" of enemy. Troops can then move, shoot and charge.

Plasmacide scions, one of the units that influenced the beta rule is still doable and even more effective from a Valkyrie as they can move to get in rapid fire range for plasma or re-roll damage for melta.

Valkyries start from 140 points. Toughness 7, 14 wounds.

Alternatively, 3 Valkyries, 3 inquisitors and 33 acolytes with chainswords would be awesome.

STTAB

Posted 28 April 2018 - 11:01 PM

STTAB

+FRATER DOMUS+

+ FRATER DOMUS +

285 posts

Thanks for the correction.

Given previous beta rules, I reckon the beta DS rule will eventually become a full rule in a diluted form.

The most likely, to me, is that the beta DS rule will eventually only apply to the army that goes first, creating more of a balance between going first/second, and choosing to go second a better option for DS heavy builds/factions. This would allow a saving of face with the concept of the beta rule standing but improving the balance between going first/second.

DS assualt armies will always have to face one round of movement/fire before being able to DS, so the opponent always has the ability to do something to counter. With the current Beta rule, a DS heavy build will struggle if they go second with 50% of their force having to stand up to 2 rounds of fire from up to 100% of the opponent's force.

Given past performance and current trajectory, this seems a logical and elegant solution.

Basteala

Posted 11 May 2018 - 10:28 PM

If this restriction will stick, having Drop Pods exempt from it (for no points increase) would be a good move.

While it would be something, I think you going to have problems justifying why the drop pod can land crash outside of your deployment zone and jump packs cannot land there, but only in the first turn.

Easy. The jump packs are making a controlled descent towards the ground and are therefore limited in how fast their entry velocity can be. Enemy units could shoot them down on that first turn ,but by turn 2 are too busy dealing with approaching ground threats.

A drop pod, on the other hand, is more heavily armored, and can allow much faster entry, especially when you consider with with genetic enhancements, redundant organs, and considerable training, they can probably handle a much higher G Force rating. This lets the Drop Pod slam in, shrugging off small arms fire and moving too fast for heavy weapons to reliably lock on.

Also, if you're a shooty army, going second against a Deep Strike list with the old rules was really obnoxious. If they do ease off on the Deep Strike Rule, I hope it's akin to the penalty applying if you go first, that way the other guy isn't getting completely disrupted on his Turn 0.

Posted 11 May 2018 - 11:45 PM

McElMcNinja

Posted 15 May 2018 - 01:49 AM

McElMcNinja

+FRATER DOMUS+

+ FRATER DOMUS +

291 posts

Location:Kansas City, MO

Faction: Death Guard

I would have been happier if they said you couldn't DS into your opponents deployment zone turn 1. I run Death Guard and still being able to DS some Deathshroud next to Mortarion after his first move would have been nice.

chapter master 454

Posted 15 May 2018 - 06:28 PM

Given previous beta rules, I reckon the beta DS rule will eventually become a full rule in a diluted form.

The most likely, to me, is that the beta DS rule will eventually only apply to the army that goes first, creating more of a balance between going first/second, and choosing to go second a better option for DS heavy builds/factions. This would allow a saving of face with the concept of the beta rule standing but improving the balance between going first/second.

DS assualt armies will always have to face one round of movement/fire before being able to DS, so the opponent always has the ability to do something to counter. With the current Beta rule, a DS heavy build will struggle if they go second with 50% of their force having to stand up to 2 rounds of fire from up to 100% of the opponent's force.

Given past performance and current trajectory, this seems a logical and elegant solution.

Unfortunately it doesn't help at all and in fact will only hurt armies that have select deep strikers, Deep Strike heavy armies WANT to go second.

While Bubbling is something that can be done, maintaining it can be difficult in an effective manner and really only horde armies can do it. Deep Strike armies do this "Go Second" because they forfeit moving but then make you effectively skip a turn of shooting. Most DS heavy armies will bring chaff and supporting units that mean little to the grander scheme of things, being purely there for rule reasons and to distract. Whether or not you shoot them is moot, if you shoot them they achieve their objective if you don't they achieve their objective. Now I come in via my Deep Strike and unleash a salvo of hellfire on you with ranged weapons and likely attempt some charges with an army you had no interaction with.

If both sides need to forfeit their first turn to gain access to the most powerful movement ability in the game then it becomes fair as now both players gave up a turn but in that proposed idea now going second is far more favourable for one army to an extreme case of becoming heavily gimped just because of chance (so now the inverse happens) and even then going second in a DS heavy Mirror match is best as it forces your opponent to blink at turn 3 if they hold off and now you have one army getting their chance to take first turn despite not having first turn.

Let me make this clear: Turn 1 deep strike is incredibly powerful beyond anyone realising here. Let me make this absolutely clear: at WORST where the enemy has bubbled their entire deployment zone perfectly, not one grot spit of space to Deep Strike into, you will still gain in effect over standard maps 15" of movement and even the more esoteric deployment maps still give MASSIVE areas to drop into round the flanks (which depending on which side you want to travel up could be anywhere up to 24" to 36" on a 6x4 table). That is a MASSIVE amount of movement for any unit to have, we are talking movement rates equalling some of the fastest skimmers in the game and we have that on units like genestealers whose main weakness is meant to be getting shot at WHICH NEVER HAPPENS because by the time you can shoot you are already jumped on, eaten and now genetic soup!

I want to know why people still think Turn 1 Deep Strike is healthy for this game? It doesn't hinder alpha strike armies (a common complaint) but instead it helps them as they make use of it the most. Getting to dump your army wherever you like turn 1 is not good design, you may as well at that point tell your opponent to not bother with deployment zones and instead alternate placing units anywhere on the board with 9" minimum between any hostile units!

Kallas

Posted 18 May 2018 - 09:47 AM

Kallas

+FRATER DOMUS+

+ FRATER DOMUS +

823 posts

Location:Edinburgh, UK

Faction: Howling Griffons

I want to know why people still think Turn 1 Deep Strike is healthy for this game? It doesn't hinder alpha strike armies (a common complaint) but instead it helps them as they make use of it the most. Getting to dump your army wherever you like turn 1 is not good design, you may as well at that point tell your opponent to not bother with deployment zones and instead alternate placing units anywhere on the board with 9" minimum between any hostile units!

I've played several games with the beta rules now and I've managed to play around the beta rules and get some massive alpha strikes in regardless using flyers, Blood Angels Scouts, non-DS Jump Pack units and Upon Wings of Fire (Blood Angels stratagem).

In the games I've played I've managed to go first every time (which is skewed, of course). Regardless; not being able to deep strike turn one made no difference, as in those games I demolished huge portions of my opponents' armies before they could react.

He was using a Baneblade and a good portion of Stormtroopers (2 Command Squads, 2 Scion Squads) and a small/medium amount of Infantry Squads (6, I believe) plus other supporting elements (a Valkyrie, Las HWT, ML HWT, etc).

I put nothing into reserve, everything into reasonable cover. My opponent put all but one unit of Scions into reserve (they rode the Valkyrie; he was testing the beta particularly).

I got first turn, Forlorn Fury'd my Captain (drew Kingslayer), murdered good Warlord; Wings of Fire'd one unit of Inceptors so both units could get shots, which combined with the three Scout Squads murdered two Infantry Squads, a Command Squad and put several wounds onto the Baneblade; Librarian used Wings of Sanguinius to get to kill a bunch of Guardsmen; Stormhawks crippled the Valkyrie; Stormraven injured the Baneblade and obliterated two (well, one and contributed to the other) Infantry Squads; Predators used Killshot to badly damage the Baneblade.

Basically destroyed my opponent's on-board presence thanks to good shooting volume and the ability to jump on him in melee first turn.

My opponent's first turn: he couldn't actually bring down his Scions, even in his own deployment zone (other than a particularly far corner) due to the presence of my many units.

Cutting a long story short, the deep strike beta hurt that game by stopping my opponent being able to respond to a massive alpha strike. It made minimal difference to me, as I simply didn't need it, and that is the same story for several armies (any shooting heavy army; Tyranids, using Swarmlord, plus other things; Eldar with Quicken, and generally fast units such as Shining Spears; etc).

Similar to vs the Guard: flyers screamed forward, Doom Scythe got dinged up, but the Raven basically destroyed a Warrior blob alone; Destroyers removed by one Stormhawk/supporting fire; Gauss Stalker destroyed by Killshot Predators. Not nearly as devastating as vs the Guard as I didn't commit my melee forces (Captain held back, and the Scouts just holed up in ruins/craters).

His retaliation killed the Raven (which exploded on a bunch of his stuff 😅) and tied up one unit of Scouts, that was about it, due to ranges, hit modifiers and general resilience of the things he could get at.

My turn two, the Predators blew the Scythe out of the sky, then the Heat Ray Stalker, then they (with their Heavy Bolters) and the Hawks removed the second Warrior blob. Scouts (plus more Scouts moving to support) killed some Scarabs; Captain used Wings of Fire and Decent of Angels to jump his Warlord (Resurrection Protocols kept him alive, but the Captain consolidated into the Tesla Immortals to lock them down).

Game is basically done, with me just mopping stuff up for a T4 tabling. Again, no DS turn one made no difference and the alpha strike was very impactful.

Now, both of those would certainly have been different if my opponents had gone first. My Scouts would almost certainly get obliterated; my Predators would likely get hurt, maybe losing one (Necrons were definitely light on AV fire) and the Guard would've had Scions ready in their second turn.

But the point is that my alpha strikes came with little hindrance due to the beta rules, and those rules actually shut out my Guard opponent's possible comeback by denying him the ability to retaliate.

Something certainly needs tweaking about the game, but it's about alpha strikes in general, not deep striking in general. Maybe they are intertwined, but nerfing deep strike doesn't really curtail alpha strikes, as that's a much larger issue.